Personal information is protected from disclosure under RTI, with exemptions based on public interest.

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.05.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1) On what date the services of Dr. Bhim Sen Singh, then Principal of K.M. College, were terminated by the Governing body (G.B) of K.M. College?

2) Did the G.B. of K. M. College ever recall its decision of the termination of Dr.

Bhim Sen Singh? If Yes, then please supply the copy of the minutes of the G.B.

meeting in which the said decision was taken.

3) Did the G.B. of K.M. College release retirement benefits namely, pension, gratuity, leave encashment, etc. to Dr. Bhim Sen Singh who was terminated?

4) Is the G.B. of K. M. College empowered to release the retirement benefits of a terminated Teacher/ Principal? If Yes, then please provide the date/dates when the G. B. decided to release these benefits to Dr. Bhim Sen Singh.

5) Did D.U. make any recommendation/order to the G.B. of K.M. College, not to release the retirement benefits of Dr. S. P. Gupta whose services were terminated by the College? If Yes, please supply a copy of the said order/letter of the same.

…, etc./ other related information

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.05.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

This is a third party information which could not be provided.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.05.2024, which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.

4. Aggrieved by the improper adjudication of his first appeal by the CPIO instead of the FAA, the Appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission on

10.07.2024.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Dhiraj Kumar, Associate Professor, Kirori Mal College, appeared in person.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought by the appellant pertains to a third party and is therefore exempt from disclosure under the provisions of the RTI Act . Accordingly, the information was denied. Upon being questioned by the Commission regarding the improper adjudication of the first appeal by the FAA, the respondent clarified that the inclusion of the CPIO’s name in the said order was due to administrative oversight.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the denial of information by the CPIO vide letter dated 21.05.2024 is justified, as the information sought by the appellant pertains to the personal information of a third party and is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act . In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of “personal information” envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K.

Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:

“59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedin